September 16, 2018
Brian Eno is one of the greats.
Roxy Music will be eternal, and actually a whole lot of his solo stuff was really, really good.
Ambient 1: Music for Airports is something they should be playing in airports across the world.
Instead they’re playing the satanic ritual psychic-driving anthem “Havana nah nah nah.”
Eno also produced Bowie and Talking Heads albums, and is arguably the single most influential living musician who is not a household name.
He also invented the card deck Oblique Strategies, which I recommend to any and all aspiring creatives (remember that I am first and foremost a creative artist, and will at some point be regarded as such).
I also think that the cards can help with general life of an average person who is not necessarily involved in creative pursuits, and me mentioning them right now can be considered your “Self-Help Sunday” for the day.
At time of writing, you can still buy the deck on Amazon for $65, but it will probably get banned as soon as I push “publish” on this article, so here’s a pdf. The whole point is to look at one at a time and think about it for a while (I Ching style – I also recommend the I Ching, and the whole Ten Wings for that matter), so the pdf, seeing them all laid out on one page, is not ideal. You can print them off and cut them up.
Eno is basically the thinking man’s Phil Collins.
But the problem with being a thinking man’s anything is that you’re going to start thinking about just what the shit these kikes are up to, which gets you banned from everything. Just for thinking about it, you’re banned.
In a rare case of a boycott against a musician who himself advocates boycotting Israel, a German town has withdrawn an invitation to British musician Brian Eno to perform at a festival.
Eno was slated to appear at the Electricity Conference in Düsseldorf in October but last week he signed a letter urging a boycott of the Eurovision Song Contest that will be held next year in Israel.
Festival organiser Rüdiger Esch told the Westdeutsche Zeitung it “was the only right decision” to disinvite Eno because “we don’t want to invite anyone who supports activities against the State of Israel, even if you cannot agree with the current settlement policy.”
The thing about that is: Israel is a settlement policy. The foundational concept of the state was to steal the land of a bunch of primitive brown people.
I’m not going to go into whether or not I give a shit about Palestinians (I do not), but the correct morality in the modern age is that using violence to physically remove brown people from a landmass is evil.
America and Australia are evil “nations built on genocide,” because both landmasses had primitive brown people running around in the woods when they were settled by whites who built countries there.
South African whites are evil even though there was no one living on that land when the state was founded and the blacks all came later because they wanted to leech off white settlers.
So actually it’s evil to not just give your country over to whatever brown people show up. Obviously that’s the thing with mass immigration – “you have to give your country over to these invading hordes of brown people because something something something reasons, if you question this or even talk about it ever you are pure evil.”
But the Jews have a different standard completely. It is good that they are stealing brown people’s land, and if you question an act which when white people do it is evil, you are then evil.
Note: It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that the situation of Israel is much more extreme than the situation of America. There was no actual plan to remove the Indians from the land until like 1810s when the raids on white settlers just wouldn't stop no matter what lengths whites went to to negotiate peaceful solutions. There was so much land that no one necessarily had to be pushed out, but the Indians were just so violent that they couldn't manage to live in any proximity at all to whites without looting and slaughtering. Conversely, Israel's founding premise was to use terrorism and mass-murder to steal people's land.
The fact that both of these seemingly contradictory positions exist next to each other is just not addressed. They shut down discussion of it. You aren’t allowed to talk about it publicly, really – they will shut you down, ban you from music festivals, everything.
If you were somehow able to corner some Jew or Jew-lover and ask how it is that the settling of America was evil, but the diametric opposite is true of Israel, where questioning what is ostensibly the exact same thing is evil, they would either tell you:
- Jews have a right to steal someone else’s land because of the Holocaust, or
- Jews are God’s Chosen people and the Jewish religion says they can steal this land
The first one is not even an actual argument and does not make any sense. The second one is at least “this is my position, we are racially superior because of supernatural reasons, normal rules do not apply to us.” It is a religious argument, but it is a position that they can explain using a system that they actually believe in.
And yet the whole ideology of the left, which says that it is wrong to slaughter brown people and take their land, is areligious, so the only argument you can make to most white anti-Israel people is that they have to steal Palestine because of the Holocaust. And obviously, that is just intended to end conversation. Because seriously: that dog simply does not hunt.
It’s a real quandary. And my whole thing is: always exploit the weaknesses in the narrative by pressing on them. This is why I support BDS. Because it begins to unravel the entire structure of the narrative itself, and it obviously harms Jews.
That does not mean I give a shit about Palestinians. That is not the thing. We are engaged in a guerrilla Infowar, and that means hitting soft targets, it means attacking the weakest points in the enemies’ defenses.
And the weakest points in an ideological system are the contradictions. And there is simply no greater contradiction in the modern Jewish ideological system than “America is evil for stealing the land of primitive brown people but questioning Israel doing the exact same thing is even more evil than that.”
Well, I don’t know – “we support unlimited rights for homosexuals and unlimited Islamic immigration” is also a pretty great contradiction. And there are many, many others.
What you are doing by addressing these weak points is exploiting the human (mostly white) need for cognitive closure.
The need for closure is the motivation to find an answer to an ambiguous situation. This motivation is enhanced by the perceived benefits of obtaining closure, such as the increased ability to predict the world and a stronger basis for action. This motivation is also enhanced by the perceived costs of lacking closure, such as missing deadlines. According to Kruglanski et al., need for closure exerts its effects via two general tendencies: the urgency tendency (the inclination to attain closure as quickly as possible) and the permanence tendency (the tendency to maintain it for as long as possible). Together, these tendencies may produce the inclinations to seize and then freeze on early judgmental cues, reducing the extent of information processing and hypothesis generation and introducing biases in thinking.
The level of the need for cognitive closure is a fairly stable individual characteristic. It can affect what information individuals seek out and how they process it. However, this need can be affected by situational factors like time constraints. For example, in the presence of a high need for closure (induced using time constraints), individuals are more likely to use simple cognitive structures to process information.
I will say again: we are guerrillas in an Infowar, and our strongest weapon is widescale psychological manipulation. That goes for all target groups, which obviously includes white liberals.
The more confusion and lack of closure you are able to inject into the existing system, the more likely the targeted individual is to break with various established perceptions. We are fighting a war for reality against a manufactured, fake reality, and presently, the fake reality is much more dominant than the objective reality that we seek to manifest in the minds of the people. Thus any form of pressure we are able to apply on the ability of the average individual to successfully cognitively process the fake reality is good.